The aforesaid, is aimed to establish if effectively is fair to identify the ipsum esse subsistens with the idea of God considered as the separated being from Platonic . URAM) in their existence or esse. 9. Referring to St. Thomas’s concept of God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, i.e.,. Subsistent Being Itself, Jacques Maritain. Aquinas wrote that God is “ipsum esse subsistens,” translated by Bishop Robert Barron as “the shear act of ‘to be’ itself.” So the idea of God not simply as a noun.
|Published (Last):||14 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||15.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I would like to sincerely thank you for writing comments on my blog.
I am always happy to see that people visit my blog. Buckminster Fuller Aquinas wrote that God is “ipsum esse subsistens,” translated by Bishop Robert Barron as “the shear act of ‘to be’ itself.
That is to say, univocation and equivocation must ever account for the infinite modal disjunction between our contingent existence and transcendent Self-existence. Retrieved 19 May If, for instance, we ask this same question with regard to God, the correct answer would be: Rather everything that exists, with the exception of God Himself, is the product of temporal becoming.
He did not see a conflict between faith and reason. There is also opsum possible threat to divine aseity by the existence of abstract objects, a threat that philosopher William Lane Craig attempts to provide reconciliations for in his book, God Over All.
Simplifying ese, we could know absolutely everything about what a putative creature would be, without knowing whether the thing so described actually exists. Thomas begins his metaphysical reflection, not with ideas and concepts, but with the beings that we apprehend with our senses. We see a rock, we hear a tree falling, we smell a flower, we taste the Cabernet Sauvignon, we feel the caress of our lover. God is not a good person, He is goodness. But what is it to be? Moreover it is misleading in that it presents only two possible and opposing modes of theo-logizing: I always thought that was a rather curiously mysterious way of revealing oneself.
But on this understanding of God as the act of existence, it makes perfect sense. For example, my personal proof fsse God is the love of my ese.
Thank You, Sean McCarthy. One then is left with the univocal theological project, which clings to the familiar, the sure, the understood.
See Godel’s incompleteness theorem, the particle vs. And so it is with all beings. Two prestigious philosophers, Enrico Berti and Anthony Kenny, assert that Thomas Aquinas expresses relevant doctrinal incoherencies, especially sjbsistens his ipsum esse subsistens doctrine. For example, Parmenides correctly intuited Be-ing but failed as soon as he attempted to conceptualize and crystalize it into a noun and also accounts for this curious silence on the plurality of beings in this regard.
Ipsum Esse Subsistens: The God Who is Verb | Eclectic Orthodoxy
Aseity has two aspects, one positive and one negative: Aseity from Latin a “from” and se “self”, plus -ity subsistenz the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and rsse itself. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: St Thomas clearly intends each proof to identify an ontological deficiency, subsidtens, the incapacity of beings to provide a metaphysical account of their existence.
I agree, but I note that the Eastern doctrine that God is above Being seems to exegete Scripture with equal plausibility, which suggests a certain loose fit in both cases. Hacker News new comments show ask jobs submit.
On the surface the Subsixtens assertion that the essence essentia of God is identical to his existence esse merely restates in scholastic idiom what the Church has always taught about the divine aseity and the contingency of the world: God possesses life, power, being within himself. Another book that touches on this subject is Etienne Gilson’s “God and Philosophy”. One of the most interesting bits for me is where he draws attention to the Old Testament where God reveals himself to Moses as “I am He who is”.
As Eleonore Stump eubsistens recently argued, Thomas had no problem speaking of God as one who hears prayers and acts within the world he has made.
At this point the Scriptures point us to a mystery they cannot say. What Jenson sees as a weakness of the Thomistic claim of the identity of the divine essence and existence—namely, its abstraction subsistrns the biblical story—I see as its strength.
There is a similar thought in the Dao De Jing.
Services on Demand Article. I am feeling pretty silly now.